The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

Yeah just what I was thinking. Not only that but assuming their Internet security is as bad as all the other banks, a perfect opportunity to ding liberal spinner-hats all around the world in their pocketbooks.

The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

Much as I dislike him, you really need an "alleged" there for fairness. It's not clear as day to all of us exactly what happened between the two of them, unlike Snowden, who has in effect confessed. But still: "alleged rapist".

The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

Much as I dislike him, you really need an "alleged" there for fairness. It's not clear as day to all of us exactly what happened between the two of them, unlike Snowden, who has in effect confessed. But still: "alleged rapist".

Assange stated he would gladly go to Sweden to answer to the alleged charges of rape but Sweden could not guarantee he wouldn't be extradited. So for all we know the rape charge was just a way to get him custody and into the United States. With all the fucked up shit being leaked about the US, this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

If the money guarantee me will go directly to the hands of Julian Assange and no one else I will donate in a heart's beat and for Edward Snowden he too in needed some cash, black list or no black list.

If the money guarantee me will go directly to the hands of Julian Assange and no one else I will donate in a heart's beat and for Edward Snowden he too in needed some cash, black list or no black list.

I wouldnt bet money on that. At this point, Assange's entire contribution to Snowden (as far as we know) is nothing more than pointless press releases.

"If you're not already on a government watch list by now, you should be ashamed of yourself."

I've been on one of the TSA "enhanced screening" lists* for years, and I recently wrote a series of blog posts explaining how one could encrypt one's email, then posted links to it every place there's a place. Hello, NSA!

I wonder whether there's such a thing as a Guy Fawkes rubber stamp I can use on postal mail.

* Truth to tell, it's probably some other Bob Brown who's on the TSA list because my own life is very boring. But it's still a pain in my butt; can't print a boarding pass at home, nor at an unattended kiosk at the airport; have to stand in line and talk to a real person. Et cetera.

Edit: A search for "Guy Fawkes rubber stamp" finds one on eBay for $7.

If the money guarantee me will go directly to the hands of Julian Assange and no one else I will donate in a heart's beat and for Edward Snowden he too in needed some cash, black list or no black list.

I wouldnt bet money on that. At this point, Assange's entire contribution to Snowdensociety (as far as we know) is nothing more than pointless press releases.

Fixed that for you.

Now, why is it that we're supposed to want to contribute to Wikileaks, again?

"If you're not already on a government watch list by now, you should be ashamed of yourself."

I've been on one of the TSA "enhanced screening" lists* for years, and I recently wrote a series of blog posts explaining how one could encrypt one's email, then posted links to it every place there's a place. Hello, NSA!

I wonder whether there's such a thing as a Guy Fawkes rubber stamp I can use on postal mail.

* Truth to tell, it's probably some other Bob Brown who's on the TSA list because my own life is very boring. But it's still a pain in my butt; can't print a boarding pass at home, nor at an unattended kiosk at the airport; have to stand in line and talk to a real person. Et cetera.

Edit: A search for "Guy Fawkes rubber stamp" finds one on eBay for $7.

Guy Fawkes. There's another guy to admire. Do you have the faintest idea what that guy did?

The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

Much as I dislike him, you really need an "alleged" there for fairness. It's not clear as day to all of us exactly what happened between the two of them, unlike Snowden, who has in effect confessed. But still: "alleged rapist".

Assange stated he would gladly go to Sweden to answer to the alleged charges of rape but Sweden could not guarantee he wouldn't be extradited. So for all we know the rape charge was just a way to get him custody and into the United States. With all the fucked up shit being leaked about the US, this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

It is illegal for a Swedish government agency (or politician) to make such a promise. And even if it were legal, they are completely unable pass a judgement on any extradition request when there exist none.

Also, Assange would be potentially/theoretically safer in Sweden because Swedish and UK law requires that both Sweden and UK agree to any terms of Assange's extradition if USA were to petition Sweden for such. If USA were to petition UK today for the extradition of Assange, only UK law would stand in the way. And there are a number of recent events that casts doubt on how well UK (a very close NATO ally to USA) would react.

Apologists for the idea of sending Assange to Sweden without adequately safeguarding his rights try to argue that Sweden cannot safeguard Assange's rights, and that therefore asking for guarantees is unreasonable. They claim, for instance, that the Swedish government could not prevent an extradition to the United States, if the Swedish courts allowed it. [...]

This is false. The final word on an extradition is not with an independent Swedish court. It is with the government. The government has a political veto, just like in the United Kingdom, where the Home Secretary recently vetoed the Gary McKinnon extradition, or when Jack Straw vetoed the extradition of alleged torturer General Augusto Pinochet. [...]

Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden. [...]

Guy Fawkes. There's another guy to admire. Do you have the faintest idea what that guy did?

God, what the world is coming to these days.

Plotted to blow up the House of Lords of a repressive government. So, in the eyes of the government, a terrorist. Captured, tortured, and executed by order of the king. Also something of a military adventurer. Izzat faint enough for you?

However, the Guy Fawkes mask has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes and everything to do with the graphic novel V for Vendetta.

Apologists for the idea of sending Assange to Sweden without adequately safeguarding his rights try to argue that Sweden cannot safeguard Assange's rights, and that therefore asking for guarantees is unreasonable. They claim, for instance, that the Swedish government could not prevent an extradition to the United States, if the Swedish courts allowed it. [...]

This is false. The final word on an extradition is not with an independent Swedish court. It is with the government. The government has a political veto, just like in the United Kingdom, where the Home Secretary recently vetoed the Gary McKinnon extradition, or when Jack Straw vetoed the extradition of alleged torturer General Augusto Pinochet. [...]

Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden. [...]

Chapter 11. art. 7 of The (Swedish) Instrument of Government:[1]No public authority, including the Riksdag and the decision-making bodies of local authorities, may determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis a private subject or a local authority, or relating to the application of law.

Apologists for the idea of sending Assange to Sweden without adequately safeguarding his rights try to argue that Sweden cannot safeguard Assange's rights, and that therefore asking for guarantees is unreasonable. They claim, for instance, that the Swedish government could not prevent an extradition to the United States, if the Swedish courts allowed it. [...]

This is false. The final word on an extradition is not with an independent Swedish court. It is with the government. The government has a political veto, just like in the United Kingdom, where the Home Secretary recently vetoed the Gary McKinnon extradition, or when Jack Straw vetoed the extradition of alleged torturer General Augusto Pinochet. [...]

Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden. [...]

Chapter 11. art. 7 of The (Swedish) Instrument of Government:[1]No public authority, including the Riksdag and the decision-making bodies of local authorities, may determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis a private subject or a local authority, or relating to the application of law.

Entirely irrelevant. The Swedish courts are free to make their own decision in any case. However, whatever the Swedish courts decide is not the final answer, as the Swedish government can freely veto (or freely announce their intention to veto) the Swedish court's decision. Ecuador does not seek an assurance regarding what the Swedish courts will decide. It seeks an assurance that the Swedish government will veto any extradition to the United States, regardless of what the Swedish courts may freely decide.

Apologists for the idea of sending Assange to Sweden without adequately safeguarding his rights try to argue that Sweden cannot safeguard Assange's rights, and that therefore asking for guarantees is unreasonable. They claim, for instance, that the Swedish government could not prevent an extradition to the United States, if the Swedish courts allowed it. [...]

This is false. The final word on an extradition is not with an independent Swedish court. It is with the government. The government has a political veto, just like in the United Kingdom, where the Home Secretary recently vetoed the Gary McKinnon extradition, or when Jack Straw vetoed the extradition of alleged torturer General Augusto Pinochet. [...]

Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.

Sources stressed that no extradition request would be submitted until and unless the US government laid charges against Mr Assange, and that attempts to take him to America would only take place after legal proceedings are concluded in Sweden. [...]

Chapter 11. art. 7 of The (Swedish) Instrument of Government:[1]No public authority, including the Riksdag and the decision-making bodies of local authorities, may determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis a private subject or a local authority, or relating to the application of law.

Entirely irrelevant. The Swedish courts are free to make their own decision in any case. However, whatever the Swedish courts decide is not the final answer, as the Swedish government can freely veto (or freely announce their intention to veto) the Swedish court's decision. Ecuador does not seek an assurance regarding what the Swedish courts will decide. It seeks an assurance that the Swedish government will veto any extradition to the United States, regardless of what the Swedish courts may freely decide.

Nope, this is where you do not understand the Swedish Grundlag. The Grundlag (essentially Sweden's constitution) expressively forbids the action you just claimed that Riksdagen can do.

In plain text: "Ingen, inte ens regering eller riksdag får påverka myndighetsbeslut som gäller enskilda personer. "Translated: "Nobody, not even the government may interfere in the decisions of government agencies or private persons".http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Sa-funkar-ri ... ngsformen/

I'll help you translate the parts you do not understand. But do understand this: The Swedish government can not interfere without mangling its own constitution. Therefore they can obviously not give any assurance what the independent courts will do, because if they promise that the courts will do something, or if they will interfere in the aftermath of what the court have decided they will be prosecuted themselves by konstitutionsutskottet and the ministry of justice.

[...] Take the word of the Swedish and Australian governments. The Australian embassy in Stockholm sought advice from the Swedish government on the law in Sweden, through diplomatic channels. The embassy then communicated its findings to the Department of Foreign Affairs in a cable:

The process required a request from another state, a decision by Sweden's Supreme Court on whether extradition was possible, and finally a decision by government to go foward with the extradition. In the Swedish system of 'consensus decision-making', a decision by government entailed a decision by a Cabinet of Ministers. As advised previously, in cases where a European Arrest Warrant had been used, the consent of the surrendering state (in this case the UK) was also required. [...]

Any temporary surrender or extradition (to a non-EU or Nordic country) required the approval of the Prosecutor-General, the Supreme Court and then the Government (and, in Assange's ase, the UK Government due to the application of the European Arrest Warrant). The Swedish Government could deny an extradition or temporary surrender that the Supreme Court had approved, but if the Supreme Court denied an extradition or temporary surrender application, then the matter ended there. i.e. the Government could not approve a process that the Supreme Court had rejected. While the process for temporary surrender could begin before the court had made a final decision, the surrender would only occur after a guilty verdict and prison sentence had been delivered. [SOURCE]

The Government Offices of Sweden website concurs:

Any state that desires the extradition of a person must make a request for extradition to the Central Authority, enclosing the report of the investigation on which the application request is based.

The Central Authority scrutinises the request to see if there is obvious reason why it should not be approved; if this is the case, the Government shall reject the request without delay. Otherwise the request is forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor-General, which is required to determine whether the conditions for extradition laid down by law are met in this particular case. The actual investigation of the case follows the rules for preliminary investigations and is conducted by the regional or local public prosecution office in which district the person who is sought for extradition lives. If the person whose extradition is requested opposes extradition, it falls to the Supreme Court to examine whether extradition can be legally granted under the conditions laid down by law. The Supreme Court then delivers its opinion to the Government for use in its examination of the case. If the person involved does not oppose to extradition, the report from the investigation is instead delivered directly from the Prosecutor-General to the Government, which then makes its decision. If the request is approved, a date is set by which the person must be surrendered to the requesting state. With the assistance of Interpol, the police authority concerned determines a time and place for surrendering the person to the other state.

If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request. The Government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against extradition, as the law states that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person "may" be extradited - not "shall" be extradited. [...]

[...] If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request. The Government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against extradition, as the law states that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person "may" be extradited - not "shall" be extradited. [...]

[...] If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request. The Government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against extradition, as the law states that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person "may" be extradited - not "shall" be extradited. [...]

As I said, that works only post-facto the court decision. There is no legal way the Swedish government can give that promise, even if every single member of the government wants to give that promise.

[...] While hostile commentators in the English press are trying to convince English-speaking readers that Sweden cannot give guarantees, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Sweden is convincing Swedish readers of the converse. In Svenska Dagbladet, we learn that the Swedish government gives preemptive commitments about the outcome of extraditions quite frequently. Albeit, not to the people whose lives and human rights hinge on them. To the requesting states.

The usual procedure when there is an extradition request is that a country that wants to get hold of a suspected criminal will first make inquiries and examine if an extradition is possible, explains senior prosecutor Nils Rekke. If a country received information beforehand about whether there were any legislative obstacles in the country it is seeking the extradition from, then it is likely that there will be no formal request.

Do countries look carefully at the conditions, so that one only hands in a formal request if one is almost sure that it will result in an extradition?

Yes, one wants to be assured, so that it doesn't result in a rejection. Just like we do not want to put time and effort into trying to get another country to extradite someone even though one knows that it is against the laws in that country. Then there is no point in doing it, says Nils Rekke. This is why there may be cases in which the US has wanted to extradite someone, but got an informal no and therefore not put in a request. One way to come with such an informal request is to put in an Interpol arrest warrant. Then a country in practice says that if a person finds himself in our country, then we want him or her handed over. But if Sweden finds reasons against handing out the person then the US will presumably not make a formal request. The national police authority does not keep statistics about how many times the United States has requested someone via Interpol who was in Sweden, but who was not extradited. This is why there is no way to know with certainty if, and how many times, the United States has wanted to get someone extradited without formally requesting their extradition. [SOURCE]

The Swedish government is very keen to excuse the US government the inconvenience of fighting for an extradition in the courts only to find the extradition vetoed by the government. It therefore discretely lets the US government know whether or not it will veto the extradition in advance. This thoughtfulness does not extend to defendants, who also must do without the considerable resources of the United States government. The question of whether or not the Swedish government will veto their extradition is only for them to know once they have fought through multiple stages of appeal in the courts, exhausting limited resources, and probably while enduring detention in one of Sweden's famous remand prisons. [...]

Official moderation notice.

Cut and pasting from the same website repeatedly for every single one of your posts while adding no remarks of your own adds no value to the discussion. Repeatedly doing so crosses the line into trolling. 4 posts in a row that could be consolidated into one is far over the line.

The way to donate without finding ourselves on a watchlist is to buy one of those prepaid credit cards at the store using cash.

Agreed. I would not be surprised if the NSA or some other agency is watching who donates. And I would not be surprised to find the Icelandic government complying with the US one to spy on whoever does.

Much as I dislike him, you really need an "alleged" there for fairness. It's not clear as day to all of us exactly what happened between the two of them, unlike Snowden, who has in effect confessed. But still: "alleged rapist".

Or, IIRC, not even "alleged" rape, at this point. Assange is officially merely wanted for "questioning", but not charged, let alone tried in court. And neither of the women involved have ever made the "allegation" (actually denied it, in fact) and the chief prosecutor for the city where the putative incident occurred, after several weeks investigation, found no reason to charge Assange, or hold him, or have him remain any longer in the country.